delete_scopeDelete a scope by its unique ID to remove an access scope from the RBAC system. Use this to clean up unused or obsolete scopes.
Elimina un scope por id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID del scope |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It simply says 'deletes a scope by id' without mentioning consequences like cascading deletions, reversibility, or impact on associated data, which is insufficient for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence. It avoids unnecessary wording and is easy to parse, though it might be slightly too sparse for a destructive action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks essential context such as success/failure behavior, side effects, or relationship to sibling tools. Given no output schema and minimal details, the agent has insufficient information to fully understand the operation's impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers the single parameter 'id' with a clear description 'ID del scope'. The tool description repeats this but adds no extra meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a delete operation on a scope by id, using the verb 'Elimina' and resource 'scope'. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'delete_scope_own', so ambiguity remains about the exact scope of the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'delete_scope_own' or other deletion tools. The description gives no context for selection, leaving the agent to infer suitability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.